What happened

The plaintiff sued over abuse during his schooling in the 1960s and obtained trial damages for non-economic loss and medical expenses arising from sexual abuse. Although he had worked for many years as an electrician, he alleged that associated alcohol use and psychiatric difficulties impaired his career and earnings. The division on appeal principally concerned economic loss between 1975 and 2000.

The issues

The question was whether the plaintiff's testimony and the expert opinions established that abuse-related impairment produced financial loss. The appeal also challenged the treatment of relationship difficulties and their alleged effect on earning capacity.

The court's decision

The majority emphasised the absence of employment and financial records and the limited weight of opinions founded on material not in evidence. It distinguished a failure to prove financial loss from a positive finding that no impairment occurred. Adamson JA dissented on part of the past loss claim, but the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Understanding the figures

The existing AUD 186,000 award remained undisturbed: AUD 185,000 non-economic loss and AUD 1,000 medical expenses. No additional economic loss was awarded, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's appeal costs.

What this case shows

Psychiatric injury and earnings lost during particular periods require distinct proof. The decision illustrates that evidence may be reliable on one issue and insufficient on another, and that expert conclusions depend on proof of their factual foundations and a sufficiently specific connection to financial loss.

Why another case may differ

This was an appeal on a particular historical evidentiary record, not a general bar to survivors' economic loss claims. Institutional liability and the existing award were not in issue on appeal. The additional damages proposed in dissent were not awarded.

Applying it to your claim

Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.

Considering a second opinion? →